View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (12-21-07)

12-21-2007, 12:42 PM

Ron Paul Roundup (12-21-07)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=340152390&Mytoken=0252AC83-6525-4400-9D6D687ABFD047A336016812)

Hello Freedomphiles! Let's start off today's Roundup with some heartwarming news about hate. So, USAToday picked up the Stormfront story (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/ron-paul-will-u.html):

By keeping a white supremacist's $500 contribution, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul will be taking that money away from someone with "small ideologies" and using it to "spread the message of freedom," Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton tells the Associated Press.

If supremacist Don Black thinks he can influence Paul, "he's wasted his money," Benton adds.

The story of Black's donation has been around for a while now -- LoneStarTimes.com broke the news Oct. 25. Today's AP story, though, underscores again the unorthodox nature of the Paul campaign since it's safe to say most other politicians would have returned the $500.

American Thinker continues (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/neonazi_complains_about_ron_pa.html) the smear:

American Thinker has extensively covered the troubling links between Ron Paul's campaign and neo-Nazis. For our trouble we were blasted by some critics, and subjected to a torrent of abusive letters from Ron Paul supporters.

But now, a claimed Neo-Nazi, Bill White [see important update below], Commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, says he is fed up with the campaign's mild distancing and disavowal, and claims on a neo-Nazi website, the Vanguard News Network, that he has attended meetings with Paul at both a Thai restaurant in Arlington, and in his official office.

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has picked-up the story from the Lone Star Times and further assembled links to corroborating evidence, and offers a redirect link to the website on which White writes.

Centrist writer Grizzle Griz dissects (http://www.nolanchart.com/article607.html) the racism smears over at The Nolan Chart:

Thomas Lifson, editor at AmericanThinker.com recently published a new piece in a series of smears about Ron Paul's connections to racist groups. Although it does not claim that the latest evidence is the best evidence yet, it specifically eschews past critics' concerns over the American Thinker's previous hysteria by alluding that they have finally obtained…well, the best evidence yet.

Lifson cited an article by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, which cited a post by Bill White, a Commander of the American National Socialist Worker's Party and a white supremacist. White claimed that Ron Paul had been at some dinners that were originally organized by Pat Buchanan, where several members of white supremacist groups attended. That's pretty much the long and the short of the alleged facts. Oh…they also met on Wednesdays.

The only provocative part of the post was the tone. White claims that he is exposing Ron Paul's "extensive involvement in white nationalism". White also states that he is upset that Ron Paul denies any affiliation with white supremacist groups. He says that Ron Paul is a white supremacist of the "Stormfront-type". Finally, White claims that the Ron Paul Campaign is being ridiculous by calling "white racialism" a small ideology.

Lee over at Right Thinking from The Left Coast responds (http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/letting_the_air_out/) also to the American Thinker essay:

I'm irritated that Ron Paul was photographed with an asshole like Don Black. But these guys shake hands and pose for photos with thousands of people. It's called campaigning. They don't have time to check everyone's background. This was not a Stormfront event, this was a Values Voters debate.

I'm having trouble finding it on Google, but I remember back in '96, Ross Perot making a big deal about a photo of Bill Clinton shaking hands with a drug dealer at a campaign event. I remember people making a big deal out of Rosalyn Carter shaking hands with John Wayne Gacy. I thought it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

I think Paul has the perfect take on this whole Stormfront non-issue. Where would you rather have $500? In a campaign to promote a libertarian agenda? Or in Don Black's pocket promoting white supremacy?

Organizations like Stormfront are personal affront to me. I'm an intellectual Jew—I'd be the first guy they'd shoot if they ever got power. When I was a kid, a cross was burned on the lawn of my synagogue. My best friend in elementary school move to a rural area and was routinely beaten up because he was a Jew. I've met numerous Holocaust survivors and one my best friends is missing half of her family tree because they were wiped out in Poland.

If I thought that the Paul campaign was a trojan horse for these people, I'd be opposing them in all caps.

And David Weigel over at Reason adds (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124051.html):

I haven't tried to cover up the fringe right's love for Ron Paul. When I saw Jamie Kelso blogging from the Ron Paul tent at the Ames Straw Poll, I noted it in my article on that event. But in the shape of things, it's so... irrelevent. Does anyone think Stormfront posters are *this close* to white revolution and all they need now is a presidential trojan horse? For the record, Black's donation makes up 0.002 percent of Paul's 2007 campaign haul.

You know, Freedomphiles, I read through these articles and op-eds every day, so I am starting to get a sense of the aggregated countenance of the media and the competition by the general tenor of the stories I am covering. I have to tell you, something is going on here.

I think that $6 million haul seriously scared the shit out of some people. The negative stories seem to be increasing and picking up more steam. In fact, the two hour long interviews - the one with Glenn Beck and the upcoming Meet the Press Q&A - may not be so much a situation of Ron Paul finally getting the respect he deserves, but rather the MSM deciding if they give Ron Paul a full hour to talk, he'll dig his own grave and they'll finally be done with him.

For example, look at this bit (http://www.nysun.com/article/68454)out of The New York Sun:

Rep. Ron Paul's stunning fundraising prowess may or may not buy him a ticket out of New Hampshire, but there's no sign the Republican presidential candidate has managed to buy any respect from the Washington establishment. Asked for advice on how Dr. Paul could convert his millions to votes, several prominent political consultants and analysts said, in essence, he can't.

"Ron Paul's only option is to buy as many flat screen TVs as he can, put 'Ron Paul' bumper stickers on them, and hand them out to voters in New Hampshire," the manager of Robert Dole's 1996 presidential campaign, Scott Reed, said. "I just don't see where he goes. … He will probably be the only presidential candidate ever to have a surplus when he drops out, because he has an incredible amount of money and no campaign strategy to win."

"I don't think Ron Paul is a serious candidate who will make any significant difference," a political newsletter publisher, Charles Cook, said. "Money or no money, I don't think Paul will be a factor and don't waste time thinking about him."

Hey, I'll take a flat screen, if he goes that route. The Arizona Republic is saying (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1221quickhit-maceachern21.html)that young people don't matter:

One of the real curiosities of the presidential races is the fascination college kids have for Republican Ron Paul. In terms of specific policies, his popularity on campuses shouldn't be surprising. He's a "hands off my life" politician, and he has been consistent about it. Independence-mongering college kids love that. But he also attracts conspiracy theorists and other whackos. And, well, he's a Republican. Since when did they start drawing big crowds in Ann Arbor?

The Financial Post has a fantastic article (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=188154) that is so good, tits to toes, that I wanted to excerpt the whole thing. Here's a piece:

Whether one agrees with him or not, Paul is so serious about economic theory that he has become some sort of standard bearer for nerds in politics. David Frum, an unpaid Rudy Guliani advisor, was far off the mark when in this paper last Saturday he accused Paul of not having the faintest idea what he was talking about and being "too lazy or too arrogant to learn."

A Ron Paul administration, though not in the cards, would turn conventional political and economic thinking upside down.

All of a sudden, all those on the left who have been denouncing the American empire and its military adventures would find an ally in the White house. Ron Paul not only wants to bring back U.S. troops home from Iraq, but also those stationed in Europe and Asia. Cutting the half-trillion dollars a year military budget is a central part of his plan to put the country's finances back on a sound economic footing.

The Associated Press is jumping in with an article (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxU19PfTuCwWvlEiFCqyklvrqu5QD8TLCO3G1) about Paul's possiblility as a GOP spoiler:

The attention is going to an 72-year-old physician who pursued an interest in free-market economics and a career in politics.

Addressing a breakfast audience recently, he was as scathing in his denunciation of President Bush's stewardship of international relations as he was of Bush's economic policy.

"I want the foreign policy of our Founding Fathers. No entangling relationships," he said. That means trade with Cuba, ending penalties against Iran and — above all — getting U.S. troops out of Iraq.

"All this death and destruction. We blow up their bridges, we're taxed for that. Then we're taxed to rebuild their bridges and our own bridges are falling down," he said, drawing a connection between the war and unmet needs in this country.

Paul's vision of the nation's economic future is not pretty. "When empires go too far their currencies are ruined because all wars are fought through inflation," he said. "That means the trillion-dollar operation that we have (overseas) is coming to an end. I want to bring it to an end gracefully, not wait for a dollar collapse."

Statesman.com is writing (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2007/12/20/paul_draws_libertarian_challen.html)about Ron Paul's latest challenger to his Texas house seat:

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas Republican running for president who's had surprising fundraising success, got a stick (or maybe a dust speck) in the eye Thursday as the Libertarian Party of Texas said Eugene J. Flynn, an immigration attorney, wants to challenge Paul for re-election to the U.S. House next year.

Paul intends to run simultaneously for re-election and for the GOP presidential nomination, as permitted by Texas law. Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president and generally hews to a libertarian platform.

According to the Libertarian Party of Texas, Flynn tried to run against Paul as a Libertarian in 2006, but party members chose not to nominate a candidate against the Lake Jackson Republican at their spring convention.

Wes Benedict, executive director of the Texas party, said in an e-mail that he expects to be blasted "over this," meaning Flynn's challenge.

I have a couple things to say about this. The first is that, obviously, this guy is going to lose. I mean, hey - I'm a libertarian and a member of the party - but I know how we do in national elections. That said, what is this dude's problem? He's clearly more about self-aggrandizement than the cause of liberty, or he'd be going after a politician that wasn't increasing our freedom. This is simply trading one pro-liberty person for another, and there's no way any of us are better off because of this race.

So, The Washington Post asked (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/12/wag_the_blog_redux_ron_pauls_m.html?hpid=sec-politics) its readers to make sense of Ron Paul's fundraising success:

We asked the Fix community what Ron Paul's financial success said about the state of the Republican Party and the American political landscape. And boy did you respond!

As of press time, 335 comments were made on the original post.

Obviously given that volume, we couldn't pick out all of the posts that made a good point or made a cogent argument. But, washingtonpost.com politics producer Sarah Lovenheim did her best to pool the best of your responses below.

In The New Republic, Tucker Carlson talks (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=83665295-1de6-4571-af9c-0a90f6d1fde0&k=55238) about his travels with Ron Paul, the Revolution, and some hookers:

Paul is no demagogue, and probably couldn't be if he tried. He's too libertarian. He can't stand to tell other people what to do, even people who've shown up looking for instructions. On board the campaign's tiny chartered jet one night (the plane was so small my legs were intertwined with the candidate's for the entire flight), Paul and his staff engaged in an unintentionally hilarious exchange about the cabin lights. The staff wanted to know whether Paul preferred the lights on or off. Not wanting to be bossy, Paul wouldn't say. Ultimately, the staff had to guess. It was a long three minutes.

Being at the center of attention clearly bothers Paul. "I like to be unnoticed," he says, a claim not typically made by presidential candidates. "That's my personality. I see all the excitement and sometimes I say to myself, 'Why do they do that?' I don't see myself as a big deal." Ordinarily you'd have to dismiss a line like that out of hand--if he's so humble, why is he running for president?--but, in Paul's case, it might be true. In fact, it might be the key to his relative success. His fans don't read his awkwardness as a social phobia, but as a sign of authenticity. Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory of everything, it's pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes it.

This (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124060.html)is the favorite passage of Reason's Jesse Walker:

The first time I heard Paul talk about monetary policy, I'd felt like a hostage, the only person in the room who didn't buy into the program. Then, slowly, like so many hostages, I started to open my mind and listen. By the time we got to Reno, unfamiliar thoughts were beginning to occur: Why shouldn't we worry about the soundness of the currency? What exactly is the dollar backed by anyway? And, if the gold standard is crazy, is it really any crazier than hedge funds? I'd become Patty Hearst, ready to take up arms for the cause, or at least call my accountant and tell him to buy Krugerrands.

The whole thing is great. If you only click on one link, that's the one.


Beerhall Agitator
12-21-2007, 02:52 PM
Nice updates, love the work. The stormfront "controversy" is just politics as usual. I don't think most people have heard of the site, and $500 is a drop in the bucket. From a utilitarian perspective maybe Paul should donate $500 to some good cause and say it's Black's donation.

12-21-2007, 04:04 PM
this roundup thing is a great idea.

12-21-2007, 04:14 PM
Although I've set a Goggle News Alert to deliver "Ron Paul" any articles to my inbox, I really appreciate your daily roundups. They are well put together and help me put all the stuff into context. Thank you!

12-21-2007, 04:36 PM
Thanks, everybody! Yeah, Google Alerts is one of my sources...

12-21-2007, 05:55 PM
These guys make me sick...but also they make me laugh...I wonder how many of these considered Ronald Reagan when he ran for the 3rd time as an aging ,former b movie star a loser and a joke?...or Bill Clinton as finished after losing New Hampshire and being accused of adultery....? I wonder if anybody has compiled a record of their "wisdom" and matched it against reality?

12-21-2007, 06:54 PM
Thanks for the daily updates!

I'd just like to address your commentary on the Libertarian running against Paul - whatever his motives, I think it's a good thing. Anything that can distance Paul from the Libertarian Party, at least until the Republican convention, is a good thing. In fact, we (and the campaign) should play this up because Republicans like to dismiss Paul by saying he is a Republican only in name.

Focus Liberty
12-22-2007, 03:21 AM
this is my "morning paper"... thanks for the roundup!